Plain meaning in import policy defeated the reference questions, as legislative intent could not override clear wording.

The note states that the expression "fabric" in the import policy was to be given its plain meaning, and a prior authority was distinguished on facts. Separate policy entries were treated as serving different purposes, so the existence of a specific entry for non-woven fabrics did not make the general entry redundant. It further notes that questions framed around the policy's object and legislative intent did not survive as questions of law because legal instruments must be construed according to their plain meaning rather than imported intendment. The challenge regarding redemption fine was also not accepted, as no supported objection had been raised. The reference application was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions formulated in the reference application disclosed any question of law capable of being answered.

Analysis: The expression "fabric" in the import policy was held to bear its plain meaning, and the prior authority relied upon was distinguished on facts. The separate entries in the policy were treated as serving different purposes, so the presence of a specific entry for non-woven fabrics did not make the general entry redundant. The remaining questions were found to invite consideration of the policy's objects and legislative intent, but the applicable rule was that words in a legal instrument must be construed according to their plain meaning and not by importing intendment. On that basis, the proposed questions were held not to survive as questions of law. The grievance regarding redemption fine was also not accepted, as no such challenge had been raised or supported by material.

Conclusion: The reference questions were not entertainable as questions of law, and the reference application failed.

Final Conclusion: The application was finally disposed of against the applicant by declining to refer the proposed questions.

---